Basically there are many aircraft with forgiving characteristics that let a pilot make their mistakes and correct them without catastrophic results. Most jets, save the Citations and Beech 400s, will not allow for a newer pilot to make the errors necessary for learning without major problems.
Really? Not so.
The great myth that's perpetuated upon students is that turbojet aircraft are some hallowed ground only able to be operated and flown by the sharpest of sticks, and the greatest minds. Utter claptrap.
"Jets" are easier to fly, have greater performance to prevent one from getting into trouble (and with which to extrictate one from one's own error), far greater capability, offer superior situational awareness in most cases, are far more highly automated, operate inside a much smaller envelope, and have greater gauranteed minimum emergency performance than most light airplanes. Frankly, Conducting a cross country in a Beech 18 requires far more of a pilot than doing the same flight in a Learjet.
The sheer arrogance of the airline crowd is to make their job seem as though the pinnacle of the industry. Be here, or be nobody. Only the best and brightest could possibly do this, some cry. Not so.
Tell me how Lufthansa manages to maintain such a stellar reputation with their training pipeline. Tell me about the failing of Quantas cadet program. Tell me of the poor products of the CX cadet system. You really can't. What you can do is whine that you don't have that job. What we have here isn't a case of diminishing airmanship; we have a case of sour grapes from those who think the jobs should be given to experienced pilots who will be paid more.
This isn't an issue of diminishing airmanship. It's one of entitlement.
For proof all you need is google:
Do so more intelligently if you're looking for "proof," because a quick perusal of your evidences find them lacking.
You give us
Cost-cutting measure fuels debate at American Airlines - Chicago Tribune, as though this somehow supports the notion of the great airline conspiracy to reduce airmanship. The article doesn't address airmanship at all. Why did you introduce it in the first place? The article, a popular media note, is fraught with error and mistakes, as we often expect popular media articles on aviation to be. To wit:
"
American has taken the spotlight as its management spars with the airline's pilots and dispatchers over who determines how much fuel a plane needs to reach its destination, a call traditionally made by the flight's captain."
In fact, this is not a call traditionally made by the captain, save for a limited token "discretionary fuel" value that the PIC may sometimes append to the dispatched fuel load. Let's face it, the captain doesn't even calculate the fuel; it's done for him, as is nearly everything in an airline operation. The article you hold up as evidence of dying airmanship (as a function of airline "beancounter" conspiracy) is both irrelevant, and false.
Not only does the article not support the argument that airlines are attempting to reduce airmanship through the evil of ruthless "beancounters," it actually cites some cases of increased training. Go figure. If you attempted to show us some way that "beancounters" have striven to knock airmanship down a notch, you've clearly failed.
The daily mail article,
Cost-cutting airlines 'risk the safety of passengers', warns aviation watchdog | Mail Online, laughably suggests that pilots are spending too much time on simulators:
"
It says that pilots are becoming over-reliant on automatic systems because they spend too long on simulators instead of flying manually. "
Drivel.
That pilot training has been "paired to the minimum because of cost pressures" is shown by excess simulator training and extra training sessions? Really?
Then, of course, we have
Qantas?s near mid-air disaster highlights safety concerns, which states absolutely nothing about decreasing airmanship or a conspiratorial "beancounter" assault on training departments or their budgets.
At best then, introducing these irrelevant articles serves to try to throw up a smoke screen and cloud the issue, contributing nothing to the topic at hand.
Cost cutting is part of capitalism and affects EVERY business and corporation. To deny that it happens in airlines who operate at such thin margins and are in danger of going under is naive beyond belief.
Cost cutting is not synonymous with a reduction in airmanship, nor are savings to be equated with a loss of professionalism Reducing costs doesn't mean training has been diminished, that pilot capability has been diminished, and most critically, that pilot performance is less.
The entire aviation industry operates on a razor-thin profit margin. Knowing this doesn't change anything. One must also know, however, that the cost of failing to properly train crews and provide the tools necessary to do the job, which includes ensuring standardization, understanding, and airmanship, far exceeds to cost of properly providing those services. Airlines are in no hurry to diminish airmanship at the cost of lives and airframes; even the lowly "beancounters" fully understand this strategic fact.